PPPoE + LAN IP on the same WAN port?

I'm pretty sure this is possible, because the MLPPP version of Tomato is able to use the LAN ports to connect to the DSL modem for multi-linked MLPPP, but since the Asus RT-N16 does not work with the MLPPP build, how can this be done manually?

Basically, my DSL modem is in the basement along with the Asus RT-N16 + file server. There is a Cat5 wire going from the basement to the second floor switch and the desktops connect to that switch. The problem is that because the router is in the basement, wifi speeds are horrible upstairs where all the laptops are.

I want to move to RT-N16 upstairs and connect it to the DSL modem in the basement via the long Cat5 cable, but this would cut off access to the file server. I cannot move my DSL modem from the basement because that's where the phone line comes into the house and I need to maintain the best signal possible. So I need to assign a LAN IP to the RT-N16's WAN port while maintaining a working PPPoE connection through the same port. How can this be done through scripting?

Thanks in advance

Also, if this can be done, will there be any performance hit when using the WAN port for LAN traffic? IE will the packets be routed or not?

I tried playing the vlanports nvram setting but if I set the WAN port to VLAN1 (LAN) then it doesn't connect to PPPoE. Is there a way to modify the PPPoE client to specify which port it uses to connect regardless if it's a WAN or LAN port?

No offense meant, but it's incredible to me what lengths people will (try to) go to in order to avoid the relatively small expense of buying another router.

For HKPolice's case, purchasing another router or anything else that can be used as an access point and connecting that to the wired network will completely solve the problem, as well as providing roaming capability between the upstairs and downstairs.

Whether or not saving the money for an AP will work depends on the hardware you have in the basement.
What could theoretically work is tagging the LAN traffic from basement to the router position... so the Ethernet Output from the DSL Modem would be untagged, and the server would be tagged, and on the router, you add the WAN port as tagged port to the LAN vlan. If the built-in switch does what it's supposed to, it should directly pass through the tagged packets to the LAN port(s) then, and inversely, any LAN traffic that goes out the WAN port would be tagged.

That means though that either the switch in the cellar supports VLANs, or that your file server allows you to configure vlan tagging (every packet leaving the Ethernet port on the fileserver must be tagged or it ends up in the default vlan which is the WAN... and that would mean you put your computer directly on the Internet).

Be mindful though.. one false step in the setup in the basement and your server will end up directly on the Internet without a router in between. Also.. it might be preferable to have the switch so you can set the default vlan on the file server port to something other than the wan vlan so that any wan traffic is certain not to hit the fileserver.

No offense meant, but it's incredible to me what lengths people will (try to) go to in order to avoid the relatively small expense of buying another router.

For HKPolice's case, purchasing another router or anything else that can be used as an access point and connecting that to the wired network will completely solve the problem, as well as providing roaming capability between the upstairs and downstairs.

Click to expand...

Not a viable option either because my room is already way too hot, adding another ~15w for another AP is undesired especially if a simple scripting solution can be used.